Yamhill County
Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful
Arcuschin, Iván, Janiak, Jett, Krzyzanowski, Robert, Rajamanoharan, Senthooran, Nanda, Neel, Conmy, Arthur
Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has significantly advanced state-of-the-art AI capabilities. However, recent studies have shown that CoT reasoning is not always faithful, i.e. CoT reasoning does not always reflect how models arrive at conclusions. So far, most of these studies have focused on unfaithfulness in unnatural contexts where an explicit bias has been introduced. In contrast, we show that unfaithful CoT can occur on realistic prompts with no artificial bias. Our results reveal non-negligible rates of several forms of unfaithful reasoning in frontier models: Sonnet 3.7 (16.3%), DeepSeek R1 (5.3%) and ChatGPT-4o (7.0%) all answer a notable proportion of question pairs unfaithfully. Specifically, we find that models rationalize their implicit biases in answers to binary questions ("implicit post-hoc rationalization"). For example, when separately presented with the questions "Is X bigger than Y?" and "Is Y bigger than X?", models sometimes produce superficially coherent arguments to justify answering Yes to both questions or No to both questions, despite such responses being logically contradictory. We also investigate restoration errors (Dziri et al., 2023), where models make and then silently correct errors in their reasoning, and unfaithful shortcuts, where models use clearly illogical reasoning to simplify solving problems in Putnam questions (a hard benchmark). Our findings raise challenges for AI safety work that relies on monitoring CoT to detect undesired behavior.
- North America > United States > Nevada > Carson City (0.14)
- North America > United States > Wisconsin > Sheboygan County > Sheboygan (0.14)
- Asia > Middle East > Iraq (0.04)
- (28 more...)
- Leisure & Entertainment (0.68)
- Media > Film (0.46)
- Education (0.46)
LabelAId: Just-in-time AI Interventions for Improving Human Labeling Quality and Domain Knowledge in Crowdsourcing Systems
Li, Chu, Zhang, Zhihan, Saugstad, Michael, Safranchik, Esteban, Kulkarni, Minchu, Huang, Xiaoyu, Patel, Shwetak, Iyer, Vikram, Althoff, Tim, Froehlich, Jon E.
Crowdsourcing platforms have transformed distributed problem-solving, yet quality control remains a persistent challenge. Traditional quality control measures, such as prescreening workers and refining instructions, often focus solely on optimizing economic output. This paper explores just-in-time AI interventions to enhance both labeling quality and domain-specific knowledge among crowdworkers. We introduce LabelAId, an advanced inference model combining Programmatic Weak Supervision (PWS) with FT-Transformers to infer label correctness based on user behavior and domain knowledge. Our technical evaluation shows that our LabelAId pipeline consistently outperforms state-of-the-art ML baselines, improving mistake inference accuracy by 36.7% with 50 downstream samples. We then implemented LabelAId into Project Sidewalk, an open-source crowdsourcing platform for urban accessibility. A between-subjects study with 34 participants demonstrates that LabelAId significantly enhances label precision without compromising efficiency while also increasing labeler confidence. We discuss LabelAId's success factors, limitations, and its generalizability to other crowdsourced science domains.
- North America > United States > New York > New York County > New York City (0.14)
- North America > United States > Washington > King County > Seattle (0.14)
- North America > United States > Oregon > Multnomah County > Portland (0.14)
- (29 more...)
- Research Report > New Finding (1.00)
- Questionnaire & Opinion Survey (1.00)
- Research Report > Experimental Study > Negative Result (0.67)
- Health & Medicine (1.00)
- Education > Educational Setting > Online (0.92)
- Government (0.67)
- Education > Educational Technology > Educational Software > Computer Based Training (0.46)
- Information Technology > Communications > Social Media > Crowdsourcing (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Representation & Reasoning (1.00)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Neural Networks > Deep Learning (0.93)
- Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Machine Learning > Performance Analysis > Accuracy (0.68)